alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017424EN.01003302.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — HB v Commission

(Case T-706/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - Comparative consideration of the merits - Discrimination based on sex - Error in law))

(2017/C 424/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HB (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HB v Commission (F-125/15, EU:F:2016:164), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

HB

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders HB to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HB to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings;

| 3. | The costs relating to the proceedings at first instance remain allocated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HB v Commission (F-125/15). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs relating to the proceedings at first instance remain allocated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HB v Commission (F-125/15).

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
Docket No. 44. 1

Hayward, 603 F.3d at 562. The parties should also consider the effect of the subsequent 2

decisions of the Ninth Circuit applying Hayward in Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH A. SOMERS,

Petitioner,

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM

ORDER

Petitioner Keith A. Somers, a state prisoner represented by counsel, appealed the

judgment of this Court denying his Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded for

reconsideration in light of the decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en

banc).

1

The decision in Hayward significantly impacts the central issue in this case. This Court

has determined that supplemental briefing by the parties addressing the impact of Hayward on

this case is necessary. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. On or before September 2, 2010, each party must separately serve and file a brief, not

exceeding 15 pages in length, setting forth the party's position on the impact of Hayward on this

case, in particular that “[t]he prisoner’s aggravated offense does not establish current

dangerousness ‘unless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner's pre- or postincarceration history, or his or her current demeanor and mental state’ supports the inference of

dangerousness.”2

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 2
curiam), Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010), and Pirtle v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, ---

F.3d. ---, 2010 WL 2732888 (9th Cir. July 12, 2010).

2

2. Respondent must specifically identify those characteristics, other than the underlying

commitment offense, that support a finding that release of the Petitioner to parole status poses a

current threat to public safety, and point to the specific evidence in the record that supports that

determination.

3. Not later than 14 days after briefs in paragraph 1 are served and filed, each party may

serve and file a reply brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing those matters addressed

in the other party's opening brief. The reply brief may not simply reiterate or restate arguments

or issues covered in the party's opening brief.

Dated: August 11, 2010

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 61808.

#### Max Mandel Laces, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 321929-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of point d’esprit net the same in all material respects as that the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0554 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-009-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, 

EC135 T2, and EC135 T2+ Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 242 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect wear in the main gearbox (MGB) that could lead to 

a gear tooth rupture, failure of the MGB, loss of power to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control 

of the helicopter.

Costs:

With an average labor cost of $85 per work-hour:

 Taking oil samples would take 1 work-hour. Assuming 2 samples per aircraft per year, we 

estimate a total cost of $170. No parts would be needed, so the total cost for the U.S. fleet would be 

$41,140.

 A laboratory analysis of 2 oil samples would cost $200 per helicopter for labor and equipment, 

for a total fleet cost of $48,400. 

 Inspecting the oil filter element for a chip would require about a half-hour of labor for a cost 

per helicopter of about $43. No parts would be needed. 

 Inspecting certain teeth in the gearbox, performing a ground run, and inspecting for leaking oil 

would take 8 work-hours for a labor cost of $680. Parts would cost $196, for a total cost per helicopter of 

$876.

 If the oil sample analysis indicates metal chips, recording the results on the aircraft log card 

would take a half-hour for a labor cost of about $43 per helicopter. 

 Examining the log card for any previously recorded chip indications would be minimal.

 Inspecting the chip detector for deposits would require about 5 minutes of labor for a labor cost 

of about $7.

 Replacing the MGB with an airworthy MGB would require 8 work-hours for a labor cost of 

$680. Parts would cost $145,000 for total cost per helicopter of $145,680. 
2

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
Part 1, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard 

External Reports

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2021 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map 

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or 

column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This 

subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional 

information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by 

OMB and Fiscal Service:

Section V Page Number

Balance Sheet (BS) V BS - 1

Statement of Net Cost (SNC) V SNC - 1

Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP) V SCNP - 1

Statement of Custodial Activity (SCA) V SCA - 1

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) V SBR - 1

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution 

and Budgetary Resources and Budget Program and 

Financing Schedule

V SF 133/Sch P - 1

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                                        0000052234
<NAME>                                       Bull & Bear Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         312,633
<SECURITIES>                                 1,846,028
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,027,420
<PP&E>                                       1,699,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                 870,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,827,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,701
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,441,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,455,111
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,987,417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,326,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                660,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,704
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   625,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1612 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1612

 To expand the definition of highway safety improvement project under 
   section 148 of title 23, United States Code, to include education 
 integrated into an approved State strategic highway safety plan, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2017

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the definition of highway safety improvement project under 
   section 148 of title 23, United States Code, to include education 
 integrated into an approved State strategic highway safety plan, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Safety Education Improvement 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 148 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(4)(B)--
                    (A) by redesignating clause (xxviii) as clause 
                (xxix);
                    (B) by inserting after clause (xxvii) the 
                following:
                            ``(xxviii) Education, as part of an 
                        approved State strategic highway safety plan, 
                        except that the total amount of funds that may 
                        be used by a State in a fiscal year for 
                        projects under this clause may not exceed 10 
                        percent of the amount allocated to the State 
                        for the highway safety improvement program 
                        under this section for such fiscal year, after 
                        the set asides for metropolitan transportation 
                        planning under section 134 and the congestion 
                        mitigation and air quality improvement program 
                        under section 149.''; and
                    (C) in clause (xxix), as redesignated, by striking 
                ``A physical infrastructure safety project'' and 
                inserting ``An infrastructure safety project''; and
            (2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``increases over the 
        most recent 2-year period for which data are available'' and 
        inserting ``does not decrease during the most recent 2-year 
        period for which data are available compared to the immediately 
        preceding 2-year period, and exceeds the national fatality rate 
        on rural roads''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.4


 


AMENDMENT TO EXTENSION OPTION AGREEMENT


 


The parties to this Amendment to Extension Option Agreement are Rock
Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Hanover Gold Company, Inc., Santa Maria
Pacific, LLC, Gitte-Ten, LLC d/b/a Phoenix Energy, LLC, NW Casmalia Properties,
LLC and Orcutt Properties, LLC (“Amendment Agreement”).  This Amendment Agreement is entered into
effective as of June 30, 2008.


 


R E C I T A L S:


 


WHEREAS, an
Extension Option Agreement, dated effective April 14, 2008, was entered
into by Rock Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Hanover Gold Company, Inc.,
Santa Maria Pacific, LLC, Gitte-Ten, LLC, NW Casmalia Properties, LLC, Phoenix
Energy, LLC and Orcutt Properties, LLC (“Extension Option Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, as of March 31,
2008, Gitte-Ten, LLC and Phoenix Energy, LLC merged with Gitte-Ten, LLC being
the surviving company; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to amend the Extension Option Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for
the consideration and on the terms set forth in this Amendment Agreement, the
parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.             Amendment
No. 1.  The last sentence of Section 7.3
of the Extension Option Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows:


 


“Provided that RER timely satisfies its
requirements to exercise Extension Option Five, the Option IV Exercise Period
shall be extended to 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on July 15,
2008.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
authorized representatives of the parties are executing this Agreement effective
as of the date set forth above.


 


	
   

  	
  ROCK ENERGY
  RESOURCES, INC. F/K/A

  
	
   

  	
  HANOVER GOLD
  COMPANY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Rocky V. Emery

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

  
				



 

















 


	
   

  	
  SANTA MARIA PACIFIC, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  David Pratt

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GITTE-TEN, LLC d/b/a PHOENIX ENERGY,

  LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  David Pratt

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NW CASMALIA
  PROPERTIES, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  David Pratt

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ORCUTT
  PROPERTIES, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  David Pratt

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Manager
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The erroneous filing contained the caption for the correct case: Territo v. Sandham,

CIV S-04-1460 MCE PAN P.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL LEE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs.

CHARLES KING, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2005, the court issued a scheduling order setting the dispositive

motion deadline for November 25, 2005. On August 4, 2005, a scheduling order issued in

another action, setting a dispositive motion cutoff of January 27, 2006, was erroneously docketed

in this case.1 A clerk’s notice of docket correction was filed the same day. 

On February 14, 2006, defendant King requested an extension of time to file a

dispositive motion. In his request, defendant states he calendared the dispositive motion deadline

for January 27, 2006, based on the August 4, 2005 order, but, due to the press of business, he was

unable to file his motion by that date. Defendant states he believes this case may be resolved by

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 79 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

way of summary judgment motion. 

Although defendant has not met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, the court

concurs with defendant’s assessment that this matter may be resolved or substantially narrowed

by motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court will direct the parties to file within

forty-five days from the date of this order cross motions for summary judgment. In view of this

order, plaintiff’s previously filed motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties are directed to file, within forty-five days, cross motions for

summary judgment; 

2. Plaintiff’s March 21, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate defendant’s February 14, 2006

application (docket no. 77).

DATED: February 21, 2006.

/001; smit0702.36

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 79 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Z Trim Holdings, Inc. on
      Form 10-QSB
      for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Gregory J.
      Halpern, Chief Executive Officer of the Z Trim Holdings, Inc. certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Z Trim
      Holdings, Inc.





Dated:
      May 9, 2007


By
      /s/
      Gregory J. Halpern





Gregory
      J. Halpern


Chairman
      of the Board and


Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE DAVIS, No. CIV S-04-0707-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-00707-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2005, are adopted

in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted;

3. This action is dismissed; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED:December 5, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00707-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
# sec5_snc_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-08	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10June 2023
No. 64815.

#### Arthur J. Fritz & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/12516, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

*353Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal stoves similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**FY 2023/24 Scenario Updates**

**Rollover of the TFM & GTAS Timeline**

· 11/29/2023 – FY 2023 GTAS Material Difference Reporting (MDR) Window closes.

· 11/30/2023 – GTAS system rollover (Part I will now be FY 2024 & Part II will not be FY 2025) 

· 12/6/2023 – GTAS reporting window for November opens.

· 12/14/2023 – TFM Bulletin Publish – Bulletin # 2024-01.  

· Final FY 2023 crosswalks: The U.S. Standard General Ledger - Archives - Treasury Financial Manual

Page 2 of 2                                        IRC Handout 11/29/2023
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4254 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/Dangaard)

(2006/C 159/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----